The judgment establishes that for a Hindu female to acquire full ownership under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, she must have a pre-existing right and must have acquired the property in a specified manner. Mere right of maintenance without actual acquisition is not sufficient to attract Section 14.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is against the judgment dated 27/6/1988 by which the second appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed. Briefly stated the facts are as follows: one Mathura was the owner of certain properties. He had only one son by name Sarju. Sarju had four sons and three daughters. The four sons were Tulsidas, Kabirdas, Baijnath and Ram Vishal. It is an admitted position that Tulsidas died in 1930. Tulsidas left a widow by name Manki Devi who died on 31/12/1988. Tulsidas and Manki Devi had no issue. Manki Devi by a gift deed dated 1/4/1972 gifted the suit properties to the respondent Jagan Nath.

( 2 ) AS Manki Devi had executed the gift deed dated 1/4/1972, the appellants who are the three sons of Sarju filed a suit for declaration that the gift deed was null and void and not binding on them and that the respondent Jagan Nath got no right, title and interest in any of the properties of Sarju.

( 3 ) BETWEEN the parties, there was initially a dispute as to when Sarju died. According to the appellants he had died in 1952 whereas Manki and Jagan Nath claimed that he had died in 1958. It has been held by the courts below that Sarju had died in 1952. There has been no challenge to this finding. After a full trial the suit filed by the appellants was decreed.

( 4 ) AGAINST the decree Jagan Nath and Manki Devi filed an appeal. That appeal came to be allowed by an order dated 19/2/1988. The appellate court held that Manki Devi had acquired a right to these properties under the provisions of the Hindu Womens Right to Property Act, 1937. It may be mentioned that this Act came into force on 14/4/1937 but it was applied to the concerned district of Rewa only with effect from 1950.

( 5 ) THE appellants filed a second appeal. That second appeal has been dismissed by the impugned judgment. It has been held that even under the Rewa law (i. e. the Rewa State Land Revenue and Tenancy Code, 1935) Manki Devi was entitled to maintenance and that this right over property has ripened into a full-fledged right of ownership under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Hence this appeal.

( 6 ) THE question for consideration, therefore, is whether Manki Devi was possessed of and had acquired any right over the property which would fructify into a full ownership by virtue of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

( 7 ) MANKI Devi admittedly was the widow of Tulsidas. As stated above, Tulsidas died in 1930. The property had been inherited by Sarju from Mathura. It, therefore, was joint family property. As such Manki would have had a right of maintenance. The question is whether this right of maintenance fructified into a right to property either under the Hindu Womens Right to Property Act, 1937 or the Rewa law.

( 8 ) AS stated above, the trial court has held that Manki had a right under the Hindu Womens Right to Property Act, 1937. The relevant provisions of the Hindu Womens Right to Property Act, 1937 read as follows:

"3. (1) When a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga school of Hindu law dies intestate leaving any property, and when a Hindu governed by any other school of Hindu law or by customary law dies intestate leaving separate property, his widow, or if there is more than one widow, all his widows together, shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), be entitled in respect of property in respect of which he dies intestate to the same share as a son: provided that the widow of a predeceased son shall inherit in like manner as a son if there is no son surviving of such predeceased son, and shall inherit in like manner as a sons son if there is surviving a son or sons son of such predeceased son: provided further that the same provision shall apply mutatis mutandis to the widow of a predeceased son of a predeceased son. (2) When a Hindu governed by any school of Hindu law other than the Dayabhaga school or by customary law dies having at the time of his death an interest in a Hindu joint family property, his widow shall, s